clr/1967/1967_2_128.pdf

(2){a) of I niplt)\ineni) Oidci finding of tnal Couit that wotkeis WJW rmplowd 19 s7 within flι Limassol port —Upheld by Court of Appeal as hcmy open toit on the (udeiiie Port Workers Defi'i'tron <>l ' nort Impbying unregistered workeis i<*iiiidtr Cri mmal Law ' above Appeal against uimiction. Appeal a g a i n s t c o n v i c t i o n b y a p p e l l a n t w h o \\<l· c o n ­ victed on t h e 2 826 7 a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of L i m a s s o l ( C r i m i n a l C a s e \ o 402/67) o n 4 c o u n t s of i h e ofii n e e of e m p l o y i n g a t Limassol p o r t u n i e g i s t c i c d p o r t w o r k e i s c o n ­ t r a r y t o r e g u l a t i o n s 5

(2)(

1. a)a n d 16 (
2. a)of t h e I'oit W o r k u s ( R e g u l a t i o n of h m p i o y m e n t ) R e g u l a t i o n s , 1952, m a d e u n d u C a p 184,a n dt h e P o r t W o r k e r s ( L i m a s s o l , I-amagusta a n d L a r n a c a ) ( R e g u l a t i o n of L n i p l o y m e n t ) O r d e r , 1 9 5 1 , a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d b y I'ikis A g DJ , t o p a ya fine of £5 R Michaelid(\~ with Fr Kolotas, for t h e . ' p p c l l a n t s S (j'eor%hiades, Coutisd of the Ntpubht, dent foi t h e r e s p o n ­ T h e tacts sufficiently a p p e a r in t h e | i i d g m c n t of t h e C o u r l VASSII [ADI-S, I' T h e j u d g m e n t <>l t h e C o t n t will b e d e ­ livered b y J o s e p h i d c s , J JOSIPHIDIS, J In this case t h ea p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of t h e ofience of e m p l o y i n g a t L i m a s s o l p o r t u n r c g i s t e i c d p o r t w o r k e r s c o n t r a r y t o r e g u l a t i o n s 5

(2)(a) a n d16 (a)of 128 the Port Workers (Regulation of Employment) Regulations 1952, made under Cap. 184,and the Port Workers (Limassol, Eamagusta and Larnaca) (Regulation of Employment) Order, 1953, and he was sentenced to pav a fine of £5 The appeal is against comiction onK It was conceded b \ the appellant that the persons employed on his lorrv on that dav were not registered port workers within the meaning of the definition in section 2 of the Port Workers (Regulation of Emplovment) Law, Cap 184 and regulation 2 of the aforesaid Regulations of 1952 T h e only question which remains to he considered is whethei he emplo\ed those workers within the Limassol port M r Michaelides foi the appellant, in his able argument, raised a number of interesting points but I do not think that it is necessarv for the purposes of this case to decide them, except this short point • that is, whether the finding of the trial Judge that the workers were employed withmg the Limassol port was open to him on the e\idence. In submitting that the l o i n was not within the port area VIr. Michaelides mainlv relied on the evidence of the prosecution witness Charalambos Hadji Neophvtou, a Customs Guard He said (at page sG of the record) that " Customs porters were handling the goods from the store to the car of accused T h e aiea where the car of accused was stationed was a Customs area and not a port area. In a Customs area Customs porters are employed Port workers are employed at the port aiea " ; and in answer to the Court this witness said . " I do not know whether there is anv separation of the Customs area from the Port area " Port is defined in section 2 of Cap 1S4 as " a n v place appointed b\ the Governor in Council (now the Council of Ministers) to be a poit under the Customs Management Law, Cap. 315 " Section 2 of Cap 315 defines port " as a place appointed to be a port b\ the Governor in Council " (now the Council of Ministers) ; and the geographical limits of the Limassol port are defined in Part I of the Schedule to the Order in Council No 2725 published on the 26th December, 1954, in the C \ p r u s dazttte. Supplement No. 3, page 664 T h e proviso to regulation 3 of that Order reads as follows " Provided that the limits ot each port shall be deemed to include any Customs store and Customs warehouse in use by the Customs at each port respectively, and any other area under Customs control thereat." U9 1967 April 13 PAPAFINCOS TRANSPORT Co L I D , v. T H E DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, LIMASSOL 1967 April 13 PAPAFINGOS TRANSPORT Co. L T D . , v. T H E DISTRICT I.ABOIR O i l ICER, LlMA^&OI. The argument on behalf of theappellant wasthat the lorry was in the Customs area but not in the port area. It was not his case that the lorry was altogether outside the Customs and port areas. We think that the proviso to regulation 3 quoted above is a complete answer to that argument. Here according to the evidence of the Customs guard, the appellant's lorry wasstationed within the Limassol Customs area and on the strength of that proviso the limits of Limassol port are deemed to include anv area under Customs control. Lor these reasons we are of the view that the trial Judge rightlv convicted the appellant and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. un